As soon as it came out that the apparent �new 9-11� threat
had been thwarted with the help of Pakistani Intelligence Services (ISI), it
also became clear that it was a political tool for further legitimizing the
lucrative �war on terror.� After all, the ISI with Saudi financing and covert
CIA training created al-Qaeda in the first place, to counter another �threat�:
Soviet "communist enslavement.�
In 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt appointed a handful of
Wall Street lawyers and investors to posts in his administration, including
James Conant, James Forrestal, and Paul Nitze. Upon Roosevelt�s death (and the
coinciding fall of the Third Reich), this influential group began an attempt to
fill the trade vacuum left in postwar Europe. While Europeans and Soviets would
have preferred a neutralist trade environment, these State Department officials
in the final years of the 1940s sought US trade supremacy, and thus set about
creating a Soviet �communist threat� that ran counter to the CIA�s own National
Intelligence Estimates.
By 1951, this group had formed the Committee on the Present
Danger (CPD), which by March of that year successfully motivated Congress and
the public to buy into the �threat of communist enslavement� through fear-based
rhetoric in the media, setting in motion the Cold War and a US economy driven
by conflict.
As CPD members moved from administration to administration
regardless of party affiliation, the Cold War policy of �containment
militarism� ran strong through the late 1960s. In the wake of the 1968 Tet
Offensive in Vietnam, according to Richard Falk, a split between foreign policy
elites emerged: Imperialists, who sought to remilitarize the US for global
conquest still using the fear-inciting Soviet �communist threat,� and managers
(Trilateralists), who attempted to rally the corporate spheres of Europe, East
Asia and the US to adopt a new era of interdependent international trade.
In 1976, this split led to the first CPD-free administration
in the office of President Carter, though CPD quickly regrouped to kill
d�tente, oust Carter, and reestablish itself in the Reagan administration,
using �Soviet-backed international terrorism�
as the new fear factor.
Around June of 1979,
according to Zbigniew Brzezinski, �The United States launched a covert
operation to bolster anticommunist guerrillas in Afghanistan at least six
months before the 1979 Soviet invasion of that country. We did not push the
Russians into invading, but we knowingly increased the probability that they
would.�
The US had actively
recruited Afghan warlords to form terrorist groups along the northern border,
forcing the USSR to conduct a full-scale invasion in December 1979 to counter
the US destabilization program. Among the methods used by the US in this
program was the production and distribution of textbooks to schools
(madrassas), promoting the war-values of murder and fanaticism, and fostering a
generation steeped in violence.
Upon taking office
in January 1981, Reagan outlined his new foreign policy in a speech by
Alexander Haig, which boiled down to: �International terrorism will take the
place of human rights in our concern.� Thus, the 1979 US destabilization
program using terrorist groups to lure the Soviets into Afghanistan was used by
the US to call the Soviet invasion �terrorism� and to point to that invasion as
a model for the newly invented phenomenon of �Soviet-backed terrorism� around
the world.
This cemented the CPD�s original
hegemonic goal of a fear-based structure. Despite the collapse of the Soviet
Union and its �communist threat,� this structure still prevails, requiring new
external threats to maintain today�s US-global trade supremacy. Absent the old
communist threat, the degree of deceit necessary to sway public opinion
increasingly grew, ultimately employing first strikes against Western assets
both to satisfy this demand for public acceptance and acquiescence, and to
serve as pretexts for the placement of US forces in geostrategic regions. The
US currently has 750,000 troops in 135 countries.
What we are left with is simply
�international terrorism,� a perpetual �threat� straight out of the plotline of
the film V for Vendetta, and one that
satisfies most corporate executives and serves to cover such inconvenient
truths as climate change � imperialism�s product and archenemy � the
raging and disproportionate conflict in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, and the
criminal invasion of Iraq (not to mention that
this particular �thwarted 9-11� is a timely boost for the pro-war Senator Joe
Lieberman).
Immediately after
9-11, Vladimir Putin promised support for George Bush�s �war on terror,� with
the caveat that NATO cease its eastward push. Bush agreed, and just as
immediately set about pushing NATO eastward. Professor Stephen Cohen of New
York University points out that with the US today openly stating that Georgia
and Ukraine are to become NATO partners � and with Putin having drawn the line
with Ukraine, as Russia subsidizes much of Ukraine�s economy � a new and very
real tension has risen between the two largest possessors of nuclear arms. In
fact, a US warship and 200 Marines were recently chased out of the Russian
province of Crimea by a group of protesters.
The heightened
illusion of what Bush calls a �global war against Islamic fascists� also serves
to back Putin into a corner, as Putin must be perceived as even-handed toward
the 25 million Muslims in Russia.
Most people would find all of this easy to digest had they
the time to read two excellent books on US post-World War II and post-Cold War
imperialism respectively: Peddlers of
Crisis, by Jerry Sanders, and The War
on Truth, by Nafeez Ahmed. Unfortunately, few will take the time to do so,
and thus the rush of fear derived from such an event as just occurred means a
near total success for maintaining the Conflict Incorporated status quo.
In other words, in
the last 25 years the US created the threat and, through the resultant fear,
the worldwide authoritarian means to pretend to deal with it while exercising
the full scope of its imperial ambitions, with friends and puppets tagging
along. Moreover, that the US (and apparently now the UK) knowingly harbored
al-Qaeda cells throughout the 1990s and up to and beyond 9-11 lends a new
perspective to President Bush�s post-9-11 promise to �make no distinction
between those who committed these terrible acts and those who harbor them.�
Who gained? The ruling elite (the minority). Who lost? The
majority, everywhere. Who were the �terrorists�? Patsies. The need for a new
and real (fully allowed to unfold) 9-11 has been forestalled for the moment as
one waits for the other shoe to drop: the linking of Syria and Iran and
whomever else to the current �investigation.�
Funny how Bush administration officials denied any
foreknowledge that planes could be used as weapons after 9-11, particularly
when the same officials are now saying that they recognized this plot because
of its similarities to one carried out by Ramsey Yousef in 1995. What a fine
spin.
Already, US news outlets are calling the 24 suspects
�Pakistanis,� failing to mention that most if not all are British citizens,
born and raised.
�If ever there was a verification that there is a war on
terror, this was it,� said one reporter � and that is precisely what it was
intended to be. And so much for the so-called �national threat level,� which
apparently stays low during months of intensely high threat levels and rises
after a threat is �thwarted.�
The state of global affairs from
the US perspective can be summed up in one statement from a lengthy essay, Constant Conflict, by Major Ralph Peters: �There will be no peace. The de facto role of the US armed forces will
be to keep the world safe for our economy, and open to our cultural assault. To
those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing.�
Where once they
shouted �Hear! Hear!� toward progress in public chambers, one can almost catch
the resonant echoes of some Western leaders happily whispering in private
�Fear! Fear!� while their profits soar and their people tremble. Somebody
should be checking market �put options� right about now.
A human rights activist for 45 years, Brian Bogart is
the first graduate student in Peace Studies from the University of Oregon. He
can be reached at bdbogart@gmail.com.